Whichever way you run the numbers about climate change, 2012 looks set to go into the record-books. In America alone, this year's heat wave broke over 40,000 temperature records. In the 1980s, the US weather-related insurance cost was around $3bn a year, compared to $20bn (and rising) today. Hurricane Katrina alone cost more than £200bn, representing over 1% of GDP. And then there are little things like West Nile virus, unknown in the US before 1988, but now spreading as a result of rising temperatures – resulting in a record 2,000 cases by August 2012, and 87 deaths.

But how many of us expect climate change to be central to the debates between Obama and Romney in the final stages of the US presidential elections? I, for one, am not holding my breath. And yet the degree to which this rising challenge is debated should be seen by the wider world as a key indicator of whether America is fit for purpose – and fit to lead – in the 21st century.

As the Clinton Global Initiative convened in New York this week, the host city was in the midst of Climate Week NYC 2012. In a year when extreme weather affected no less than 80% of the country, with a potential cost to the economy of $50bn, there were signs that the climate agenda is beginning to move into the mainstream debate about competitiveness, growth and employment – for all the main presidential candidates have tried to avoid addressing the links in public.

Climate Week NYC was marked by the Climate Group with a launch of fascinating analysis of the growing interplay between climate, competitiveness, growth and employment. A key part of the message to the candidates, and to government, is that the 'clean revolution' draws on strengths that America has historically had in abundance, among them innovation and entrepreneurship.

The report concludes that a clean energy revolution is the "common sense way of enhancing America's energy and national security, while at the same time creating a stronger and more resilient economy." It also calls for a "reinvigorated, bipartisan, public-private partnership of government and corporate leaders in support of low-carbon entrepreneurship."

For a big slice of America, however, as the presidential campaigns have dramatically illustrated, climate is neither an obvious challenge (with many farmers affected by this year's extreme weather events continuing to deny links with high-carbon economies) nor is it obvious that the sort of electoral result likely later in the year will guarantee a return to bipartisan politics and governance.

Whoever the next president may be, America will be haunted by deteriorating competitiveness, stuttering growth and persistent unemployment problems. Which makes it all the stranger that politicians are not falling over themselves to embrace the 'clean revolution'. As the Climate Group notes, breakthroughs in cleantech innovation alone could boost the US economy by $155bn a year by 2030, if the right investments are made today. This could add an additional $3.2tn in cumulative GDP by 2050. And with government incentives, the figure could grow to $244bn a year.

But the US is increasingly challenged in cleantech markets, with major economies accelerating their efforts to innovate and expand their low carbon markets. For example, China now applies for more patents than the US.

In terms of the economic case for action, America's clean economy sector – covering business activities ranging from waste recycling to renewable energy – is worth around $1tn a year. Last year, investment in US renewable energy hit $51bn, up 57% on 2010, making the US the number one destination for such investment. With 2.7 million workers in 2010, the clean economy already employs more people than the fossil fuel industry. And by the end of the decade the global clean energy technology market could be worth $2.2tn, with the potential to create more than one million new jobs in America by 2030.

Meanwhile, America's current economy has a massive energy Achilles' Heel. In 2011 the nation spent nearly $1bn every day importing oil, gas and other derivatives that accounted for 45% of annual consumption. Oil imports account for as much as 40% of the US trade deficit, with the annual cost of securing America's oil supply estimated at between $50bn and $140bn. Worse still, the Pentagon warns that climate change is emerging as a key "threat multiplier," with rising sea levels, increased incidence of droughts and floods, and reduction in food production all expected to exacerbate existing security tensions around the world.

With America seeing a growing collision between the fossil fuels and clean technology sector, private sector leadership will be key, clearly, with business seen as a critical catalyst for an American clean revolution. To drive the process, the Climate Group argues that clean growth needs to be placed at the heart of energy and economic strategy, and that a clear price needs to be placed on carbon – with tax reform (lowering personal and/or corporate tax rates) helping ensure revenue neutrality and wider political acceptability.

The report supports earlier calls for the annual federal energy R&D budget to be tripled to $16bn a year. It will be fascinating to see how much of all of this makes it into the presidential debates next month. But, however it plays through, Romney is extremely unlikely to champion the clean revolution, whereas Obama is at least minded to do the right thing. With highly partisan politics almost guaranteed well beyond the election, I know where my vote would be headed.